The following is a conversation as it transpired via e-mail between myself and the 'Rev.' Jim Sutter. It all started out as a comment I tried to post on his blog, but he doesn't allow my comments through any longer. So much for open and honest debate of issues and what-not. Please note, that he seems to have no problems not allowing me to comment on his blog, but he cries and screams and throws a tantrum when other people try to keep his particular flavor of vitriol from their blogs.
First, I want to state that I tried to give the 'Rev.' Sutter an opportunity to keep our e-mail conversation just between us. I sent him the following e-mail on 26 July, 2007.
I would like to make our email exchange public. If you disagree with this, or do not want them them to be published. Please tell me you would not like that to transpire. If you do not explicitly tell me not to publish them, I will assume that you have no problems with them being published.
= Bigsibling
I'm thinking that nearly a month is plenty of time for him to let me know he didn't want the conversation published, so here it goes:
Bigsibling has left a new comment on your post " Hate Speech vs. Free Speech":
Since I am in America, and my server is in America, I'm pretty darned certain that American laws alone pertain to me. For instance, if I call Mohammed a child molester, the folks over in Saudi Arabia can't do squat (legally, I guess they could send someone over to blow up my house). My blog, BTW, is proudly banned in China!
He said:
Unfortunately for you, the American legal system holds a different opinion (see Yahoo case information) and your blog is banned or blocked in far more countries than China. The Saudis and being blocked in most foreign countries are the least of your problems, though, because the new EU laws and the growing awareness by American ISPs and web hosting services of the dangers of hate speech has started a very fast movement to shut sites such as your down. If you think Free Speech will protect your hate speech, think again. The US Supreme Court has ruled that ISPs and web hosting companies can shut down anyone who violates whatever rules the ISP or hosting company choose to set, and almost every one of them has rules against racism. We're now seeing this movement expand to firewalls, anti-viruses, Web filtering companies, gateways, router firewalls, servers (even your MS server). Most of the major ISPs and search engines in the US are moving to block such sites so that their users don't have to be subjected to racist material.
I see the ban has already had its effect on your site. Your traffic is down 28% in the last 3 months, and you're averaging 8.1 unique page views per day.
I said:
You are so full of caca man, it isn't even funny. One of the great things about being an American citizen is that I am subject to the laws of the United States of America, and not to the laws of the EU, or the UAE or Iraq, or Iran or China or anywhere else. If what you claim is true, then it would certainly cover anyone preaching the Gospel via blogs or other internet methods. Because in many countries, preaching the Gospel is punishable by death. In fact, just being the Reverend you purport to be is enough in some places to have you beheaded. So it seems you are saying that we are subjected to the laws and mores of other countries, when in fact we are not.
And I am my own hosting company, so I'm pretty sure I'm not going to shut myself down. I have never heard of an ISP closing an account for anything posted or said that was not illegal. I could be wrong,...but I'm not.
He said:
Wow, your ignorance is amazing. I presented the laws governing hate speech on the internet, I presented the primary court case showing that American courts recognize and honor the anti-hate speech laws of foreign countries, I presented the US Supreme Court case, you're well aware by now of the massive number of hate speech sites that have been shut down, blocked, banned or filtered in recent months, and yet you're still in denial. I'm sure you're also aware of the criminal convictions in the USA for crimes associated with hate speech (as I already listed, even providing the statute number.)
Try asking the CEO of Yahoo about how foreign laws cannot affect Americans. Yahoo has their own servers, too. Yahoo is much, much bigger, more powerful, more influential, and can afford much better lawyers than you, and they still lost, and had to pay the fine and take down the hate speech that was ruled illegal when viewed in France. You think you can do a better job than him? Ask the CEOs of AOL, MSN, Microsoft, Earthlink, Comcast, RoadRunner, Google, Bellsouth, and other American ISPs if the laws of Europe can affect their American users, and why they're in a huge rush to shut down or block hate sites. Ask the search engines, the anti-virus companies, the web filtering companies, and you'll get the same two answers from all of them: (1) They're tired of the idiots posting hatred, and (2) They want to remain in business in other countries. It's not just the EU that has anti-hate laws, it's almost every major country in the world.
Oh, and that server you're using? Wait till you get the software update in the near future. MS & Linux are both building blockers into their servers. You should be getting used to this, you're already blacklisted.
Carlos, it doesn't matter if you own your own hosting company, because gateways, firewalls, anti-virus, anti-spam and anti-malware programs are now blocking hate sites, internet filters are blocking hate sites, ISPs are blocking their readers from being able to access hate sites, the movement to end hate speech is progressing much faster than hate speech itself.
As to your "false dilemmas", the Bible and normal religious preaching is not hate speech, it does not meet the definition, which is very carefully laid out. It is only when a pattern of lies and deception is used to target a group of people for feminization, discrimination and incitement against them that it becomes hate speech.
You are showing the very typical denial of facts and reality that is also shown by neo-Nazis, anti-immigration extremists, Islamophobes and racists. Your time is limited, the world has awakened to the evil you represent, to the dangers of hate speech, and the world is finally taking action.
I said:
Dang Jimbo, I try to be cordial, but you just won't let me. You are showing your vast and enormous ignorance here. I work for ISPs and have worked for and with them for years. ISPs do not filter content. AT&T Yahoo, RoadRunner, Comcast, COX, and a myriad of dialups do not filter content period. Many have wanted to filter content, but by filter any content, they increase their liability. Here is how it works, if AT&T Yahoo decides they are going to filter...say...sites that espouse an argument that whites are better than blacks. But then one of those sites happens to get through their filters, then they are liable for that. They do, however, provide free of charge, third party software which filters websites and the like. That is the way they are protecting people.
Rev, you can stick your head in the sand all day long. But in the end, you are wrong, plain and simple. Speaking up against injustice, and crying foul when one group of people actively and openly promote the destruction of another group of people is not hate speech. Unpopular speech is not hate speech. Every time someone says something you find offensive, it is not hate speech. You use that label like some people use the racist label. If I say a black man robbed me, I am racist because I mentioned the guy that robbed me was black? If I point out that every single one of the people that perpetrated 9/11 was a Muslim, and continue on to show that there are more than a handful of Muslims that want to kill all non-Muslims (and especially Jews) that is hate speech? I don't get it.
I thank the good and everlasting God above that you and your kind were not around (or at least not listened too) when all that anti-British hate speech was being bantered around 230 years ago. If the anti-British hate speech mongers had been silenced back then, we'd all have the Queen on our monies, and be flying the Union Jack instead of Old Glory.
Oh, and just so you know, according to Google analytics, my blogs gets regular traffic from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. Oh, but that can't be, becauseI am banned all over the stinking place.
LOL you just have to keep on with the lies and the innuendos and letting people think that you can actually do things like write spiders that track people's posts and see their website stats when you don't have access.
There is word my kids use for people like you...POSER!
Bwahahahahaha
Later Sparky
He said:
You couldn't be more wrong. I don't know if you're just uneducated on the topic or if you're trying to convince yourself of something you know isn't true, or if you're trying to snow me. I know for a fact that ISPs filter content, block websites, shut down websites, close out user IDs, and it is all covered under their Terms of Service and Authorized Use Policy. The Hatewatch group to which I belong has been responsible for getting AOL, Earthlink and Yahoo to shut down close to 50 websites in the last year alone. The ISPs are working on their own to identify and shut down hate sites.
Since you "claim" to work for ISPs, you should be aware that they are protected under Section 230 of the CDA, but only if they make a reasonable effort to enforce their TOS/AUP. "Reasonable" means if one or two slip by them, they bear no responsibility.
AOL Blocks Links from LiveJournal
Posted by michael on Fri Aug 29, '03 06:45 PMfrom the clue-not-found dept. Evan Martin writes
"LiveJournal.com is an open-source weblog site with over a million users, some of whom use AOL. Last week, AOL began blocking all HTTP requests with "www.livejournal.com" Referer headers. This is a common practice by image hosting sites to prevent off-site linking of their images and 'bandwidth theft'. However, in AOL's case, they're blocking everything, not just images, effectively breaking all links to any AOL member's site--but only from LiveJournal. To be clear: nobody on LiveJournal can even make a link to any AOL member site without getting a '404 Not Found' error. We've also heard reports of the same thing happening on AOL properties (Netscape, Compuserve). This concerns us because we have to deal with the support requests: it worked in the past for our users, and it continues to work for other sites, so our users think it's our fault."
Special Note: Without giving any exlanation, the AOL block on emails which included the name of our website was lifted on April 10th. ...
www.wanttoknow.info/070406 aolcensorsemaillist - |
BetaNews | MSN Blocks 'Forbidden Speech' in Blogs MSN Blocks 'Forbidden Speech' in Blogs. By Ed Oswald, BetaNews .... and other nafarious means while ruinning their websites on their home computer. ...
www.betanews.com/article/ MSN_Blocks_Forbidden_Speech_in_Blogs/1118678712 - |
And finally I said:
Your links are terribly misleading, and border on the absurd. Granted, I did not follow each and every one, but the ones I did follow talk about MSN, Yahoo and Google blocking sites with words like "democracy" and "human rights" in CHINA. Sorry Sparky, I don't live in China. And they block those because in order to do business there, they have to. That is the difference between a free society and an oppresive society. Your blog is blocked in China too.
One of them starts to talk about AOL blocking sites, but when one clicks the link to "read more" they are taken to a completely different site talking about Iran not wanting to give up uranium enrichment (the exact kind of thing you rail against - go figure).
One of them is almost two years old, and since the guy it talks about is still kicking, it seems that this consipracy theory nut had a problem with is host and no one could get to his sites. But he is back up and running now. So the article...posted on a nutcase conspriacy theory George Bush flew the planes into the towers before he blew them up with explosives website, and is not verifiable in ANY other source via a Google search.
And yet another one is about India blocking blogspot and geocities sites. Again, this affects your blog as well. This is not Google or Yahoo doing the blocking, but India, the soveriegn nation. And once again, I'll point out the difference between living in a free and open society, and one where someone can serve jail time for kissing on the television (Google "Richard Gere" and "India" for more details - I'm not doing your homework for you)
The one about Virginia ISPs was because they improperly applied spam mail filters, and ended up blocking tons of sites, not just a select few that produce what you claim to be hate speech. And again, the incident was in 2000 - SEVEN years ago. And AboveNet (from the article) went bankrupt in 2002. I think we can infer why that happened. The other one was a Canadian company, and now an Indian company, a mere shadow of its former self (again, I believe it is safe to infer what happened here).
And the one about ATT/AOL are there attempts at keeping their own customers from entering phishing sites. They simple re-directed known phishing addresses to a page with an explanation. Not blocking hate content as you want me to believe.
And the AOL censoring the WantToKnow.info site, wasn't blocking a site at all, but rather blocking email from that domain. This is common. A domain is listed on what is called a "Realtime Black List". The RBL contains a list of domains known to be used for spam, an ISP subscribes to that, and then every email from that domain is blocked. But there is no mention of the actual website being unavailable to AOL customers.
The AOL/Live Journal had nothing to do with content, but everything to do with bandwith theft.
And you might want to read section 230 of the CDA again. It provides immunity because the service provider is considered to not be a publisher, not only if they make reasonable effort.
I have to wonder, did you even read the articles you presented as evidence to your claims? Or did you just google something and post the hits verbatim, sans verification, in the hopes that the plethora of information might bamboozle me into thinking you were being honest?
You know, sometimes people will do their homework. And when you send out misleading and bogus links as evidence of your twisted view of reality, it only makes you seem desperate and perhaps a little kooky.
But from my gmail account, this would not go through the message I got from AOL said: (emphasis mine)
*** ATTENTION ***
Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its
delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section
labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".
The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".
The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers. Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator. --AOL Postmaster
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<seeker8143@aol.com>
(reason: 550 seeker8143 IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to air-md02.mail.aol.com.:
>>> RCPT To:<seeker8143@aol.com>
<<<550 seeker8143 IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER
550 5.1.1 <seeker8143@aol.com>... User unknown
Final-Recipient: RFC822; seeker8143@aol.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; air-md02.mail.aol.com
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 seeker8143 IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:14:55 -0400
What a guy! So much for his open attitude, he has blocked my google mail address from sending him mail. No probs though, as I sent it to him with my hotmail account. Which actually got a response ( in two seperate messages) here is what he said:
And you might want to read section 230 of the CDA again. It provides immunity because the service provider is considered to not be a publisher, not only if they make reasonable effort.
Apparently you haven't followed the 9th Circuit's rulings on Section 230. But that's okay, live in denial. If you're relying on your hosting business to support your family, start reading the classifieds, as the world is done with racist nonsense.
You know, sometimes people will do their homework. And when you send out misleading and bogus links as evidence of your twisted view of reality, it only makes you seem desperate and perhaps a little kooky.
How about a test? I'll send your racist mail to MSN, and when they yank your account you can try claiming that ISPs cannot penalize people for hate speech.
To which I attempted to reply:
My racist mail? What on earth are you talking about? But I'm pretty sure you won't get this message anyway since you seem to so much enjoy blocking email from people you can't intimidate.
Which then gave me the expected response: (emphasis mine)
The original message was received at Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:08:36 -0400 (EDT)
from bay0-omc3-s40.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.240]
*** ATTENTION ***
Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its
delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section
labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".
The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section
labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".
The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers. Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator. --AOL Postmaster ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to air-yc03.mail.aol.com.:
>>> RCPT To:
<<<550 seeker8143 IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER
550 ... User unknown
Whew, this took a while to compile and compose!!!
=Bigsibling
